5 ms·
Less people -> less congestion, less pollution, less finite resources consumption . With automation we don’t need that many people as in the past. Infinite gr
by coolspot 2y ago
Less people -> less congestion, less pollution, less finite resources consumption .
With automation we don’t need that many people as in the past.
Infinite growth is not sustainable.
- atonse 2y agoTo offer a counter-point, doesn't less people = less workforce over time, less economic activity, less competition, less able-bodied men for your military, making you more vulnerable compared to other nations with better birth rates? Doesn't seem like a slam-dunk case but rather one of tradeoffs? I get that infinite growth isn't sustainable, but shrinking isn't the only alternative, correct? It can be slower rates of growth.
- coolspot 2y agoNot necessarily, if you have automation and AI. > less workforce over time Manual workforce can be replaced by robots. We don’t need 4M+ uber drivers if we have 4M Waymos. > less economic activity, less competition Not if you compensate productivity with automation and AI. Work of 100 people done by one. > less able-bodied men for your military Ideally, you should have most of your army be robots and semi-autonomous systems. Military action should only cause equipment loss on your side and not personnel loss. You still can have growth, just not the population growth, but productivity and quality of life growth instead.